[amayausers.com] Re: Court rules you can sell purchased designs
- From: webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: amayausers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:23:29 UT
This message was posted by Don on AmayaUsers.com. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY VIA
EMAIL. Instead, respond to the thread on the WEBSITE by clicking here:
http://www.amayausers.com/boards/ultimatebb.php?/topic/2/514.html#000003
Jim,
You apparently have little or no experience reading Court decisions and knowing
how they are written so that you can pick out what is important and what is
not.
"rental ,leasing or lending" is quoting from the statute that Great Notions was
suing under. It is not a decision made by the Court.
The entire first page is background information, reviewing the previous case
that the Court is hearing on appeal. The Court doesn't start commenting until
the roman numeral I on the second page.
If the Court had ruled that Great Notions had registered a valid copyright for
the designs as a computer program and had ruled that the defendant could "rent,
lease, or lend" the designs anyway, then your conclusion might be valid. But
that was not the ruling.
I said: "Third, the decision was only that Great Notions was suing under a
category of copyright that they had not registered the cards under prior to
filing suit."
You screamed:
"THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF THIS CASE THEY WERE TOLD BY THE
COURT THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS TO THE DESIGNS AFTER THEY SELL
THEM, THEY DO NOT MEET THE COPYRIGHT PRESCRIBED CATEGORIES FOR REGISTRATION
PURPOSES"
You may be screaming, but what you are screaming is showing a lack of
understand of how to read and interpret Court documents. I can see how you may
have misunderstood that page 1 is only background, not comments or a ruling.
You have to go to roman numerals I and II for those. But, nowhere is there
anything stating that "they do not meet the Copyright prescribed categories for
registration purposes"
Granted, reading the ruling under roman numeral I, may be difficult and
tedious, but, that is where you'll learn just how narrow the ruling is, what
they specifically declined to rule on and why they did not reverse the summary
judgement. You'll also need to read the case cited at the very end of roman
numeral I. (Great Notions lawyers were trying to use that case as a reason why
they didn't need to register the designs as computer programs to sue under the
Rental Ammendments Act.) They were trying to make that case say something that
it didn't. The Court didn't buy it. (that should be a caution against trying to
make laws and rulings say something they don't.) If lawyers can get it wrong, I
sure wouldn't rely on someone who doesn't practice copyright and trademark law
to convince me that I have nothing to worry about.
You must have more money to throw around than I do, if you think that spending
$20,000 or so to Dewey, Cheatam, and Howe for legal representation is winning.
They may not have had to pay the damages that Great Notions was seeking, but
spending the cost of a court case and appeal is a loss to my way of thinking
and checkbook.
I said: "...the defendant LOST her request and appeal to have her legal fees
paid by Great Notions."
You screamed:"SORRY AGAIN THE DEFENDANT WON THE CASE, HEAR ME AGAIN THEY WON
THE CASE GREAT NOTIONS LOST, DON'T YOU GET IT. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE LOST THEIR
WAGES IF GREAT NOTIONS HADN'T RUN THEIR SCARE TACTICS AND TAKEN THIS WORTHLESS
CASE TO COURT."
Rather than screaming, read roman numeral II. I'll quote it below so you and
everyone else can see that the Court directly disagrees with your conclusion
that the case was worthless.
"In her cross appeal, Mattson argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied her motion for an award of attorneys? fees authorized
by 17 U.S.C.§ 505. The decision to award attorneys? fees to a prevailing party
under § 505 is a matter for the district court?s ?equitable discretion,? to be
exercised in an evenhanded manner by considering factors such as whether the
lawsuit was frivolous or
unreasonable, the losing litigant?s motivations, the need in a particular case
tocompensate or deter, and the purposes of the Copyright Act. See Fogerty v.
Fantasy,Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 & n.19 (1994). We review the district court?s
ruling for abuse of discretion. See Hartman v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 833 F.2d
117, 122 (8th Cir. 1987). Here, Action Tapes raised important and novel issues
under the seldom-litigated
Rental Amendments Act. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying an
attorneys? fee award."
Both the District Court and the Appeals Court ruled against Mattson in her
claim for Attorney's fees.
You can scream and rant all you want, but your conclusions don't agree with
what the Court wrote.
Scare tactics? I have nothing to gain or lose by scaring anyone. I agree with
you, read the ruling, but don't just skim it. Understand the structure of how
Court documents are written. And don't ignore things that are written that you
either don't understand or don't like.
BTW, does screaming ever convince people that you are right?
===========================================================
The AmayaUsers Mailing List
Website: http://www.amayausers.com
Discussion Board: http://www.amayausers.com/boards
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.amayausers.com/list
===========================================================
Other related posts:
